Homosexuals: Some things I'm noticing about you

reply to post by petrus4

I'm not suggesting that homosexuality become lower profile from the point of view of sweeping it under the rug; I'm suggesting it from the point of view that I think to a certain extent, it will actually help homosexuality to become more effectively accepted, if it simply becomes as implicit as heterosexuality. My intent in this thread was not to object to homosexuality in and of itself, at all; but to object to some of the political behaviour that I'd seen engaged in by self-identifying homosexual people, in response to certain material dealing with it, on this forum.

This section is complex in my reply. Since it is not based in fact but in personal opinion and preference I will address it on equal footing.
The reason it cannot be a lower profile at this point in time is because of how many commit suicide thinking they are alone. Because the views of stereotypes MUST be challenged, otherwise it will go back to how it was in the '60s:

In the 60's Gays were not people. They were seen as sick and rare people. In certain areas such as Apartheid SA they were forced to undergo sex changes. In Utah it was common for kids who were suspected to be forced onto the BYU campas for "Reparation Therapy" where electro shock and drugs would be used to try and associate physical sickness with the feelings that felt natural. It was an era they actually had a big Television event called "An interview with the Homosexuals" where a guy was interviewed and had to defend the premise that he was a healthy human being who deserved to be allowed to pursue happiness with other consenting adults.

The fight has just started. 30 states decided to amend their constitutions to prohibit same sex couples from getting public benefits simply because a vocal majority were terrified of it being against their religion. It MUST be a public fight in this regards. Otherwise it is a private death. Well, private in as much a dark room is private as Privacy obviously does not factor into it. Even today gay bars are raided where nothing illegal occurs. Just a normal bar with music, pool tables, dart boards. Only difference is they only have men, or only have women.

To move from view as you suggest would simply usher in the Alien syndrome that already existed. "Mom, why are those two men sharing off a plate and holding hands?" "Don't look at them, don't talk about them!".

You suggestion would ipso facto usher in the second class citizenship that the religious right is doing their damnedest to fulfill. Simply because you don't want to see two guys or two women acting like a straight couple.

Sorry, that is simply petty and the assertions you say about it helping normalize is simply wrong. If it is seen and no special notice is made-THEN it is normal. Even a public kiss. That is normal. To ask people to walk at least 2 feet apart and not act like they care about each other simply because you don't want to see it?

Come on already.

Can you give us an article or a link to one of these bars being raided for doing nothing illegal?

You do realize that unless if it is a private bar, it is illegal to discriminate against the opposite gender, right?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Can you give us an article or a link to one of these bars being raided for doing nothing illegal?

You do realize that unless if it is a private bar, it is illegal to discriminate against the opposite gender, right?

The following was found after literally 10 seconds of searching:
cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com...
www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.ajc.com...

Edit:
There is no discrimination. Most women dont want to go to a bar where none of the men are interested in them.
It isn't uncommon though to see a group of straight women there solely for the reason they will not be hit on.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by petrus4

 

In Utah it was common for kids who were suspected to be forced onto the BYU campas for "Reparation Therapy" where electro shock and drugs would be used to try and associate physical sickness with the feelings that felt natural.

I know what they did to Alan Turing, as one example.

The fight has just started. 30 states decided to amend their constitutions to prohibit same sex couples from getting public benefits simply because a vocal majority were terrified of it being against their religion.

I've said before on this forum (not necessarily this thread) that I think gay marriage is something that should happen. I'm well aware that Christians are trying hard to be as much an obstacle to it as they can be, as well.

Christianity is dying, however. It is undergoing decline in virtually every country in the industrialised world. America itself is actually the last bastion it has left at this point, pretty much. My capital city, Melbourne, has hosted the global atheist convention for several years now.

The Clergy Project

First it was only the laity, but now the exodus is under way among the clergy as well. It really is only a matter of time, where Christianity is concerned, and it is happening rapidly. I'm predicting that within 2-3 generations, to around a 98% degree, the religion is going to cease to exist.

That is the other reason why I try not to let the Christians on this forum upset me. They are relics, anachronisms. They are members of a religion which is already dead, but simply doesn't know it yet.

Even today gay bars are raided where nothing illegal occurs. Just a normal bar with music, pool tables, dart boards. Only difference is they only have men, or only have women.

I can agree that this needs to stop, as well; absolutely.

Sorry, that is simply petty and the assertions you say about it helping normalize is simply wrong. If it is seen and no special notice is made-THEN it is normal. Even a public kiss. That is normal. To ask people to walk at least 2 feet apart and not act like they care about each other simply because you don't want to see it?

I'm not asking for that. My cousin and her partner were closer together than that in our living room. I'm asking for the first definition you gave; no special notice. My perception had been, however, that gay people more or less already had that. I don't know anyone either online or off myself, who is discriminatory towards homosexuality, as far as allowing them to live together is concerned; my father has also mentioned a lesbian couple who he's had over for dinner, and there hasn't been an issue.

When I used the phrase, "as far as allowing them to live together is concerned," what I meant was that among the people I know, there might still be a certain amount of awkwardness perhaps, yes; but there is no violence or advocacy of such, or physical or psychological abuse in any form. I've also noticed the amount of attention homosexual couples have been given on television and such, as well; and that started probably 20 years ago now, to my knowledge.

So I'm honestly surprised to hear that things still seem to be as bad as what you're suggesting. I thought we'd got past that.

reply to post by petrus4

I'm not asking for that. My cousin and her partner were closer together than that in our living room. I'm asking for the first definition you gave; no special notice. My perception had been, however, that gay people more or less already had that. I don't know anyone either online or off myself, who is discriminatory towards homosexuality, as far as allowing them to live together is concerned; my father has also mentioned a lesbian couple who he's had over for dinner, and there hasn't been an issue.

When I used the phrase, "as far as allowing them to live together is concerned," what I meant was that among the people I know, there might still be a certain amount of awkwardness perhaps, yes; but there is no violence or advocacy of such, or physical or psychological abuse in any form. I've also noticed the amount of attention homosexual couples have been given on television and such, as well; and that started probably 20 years ago now, to my knowledge.

So I'm honestly surprised to hear that things still seem to be as bad as what you're suggesting. I thought we'd got past that.

No, we've not gotten past that.
Something I go through very frequently. Straight people really like to talk about relationships and it goes like this:

Person "So, are you married?"
Me: "No."
Person: "Girlfriend?"
Me: "I have a partner"
Person: "Does that mean you are gay?"

At this point they either start avoiding me, or make claims that I am flaunting.
I personally have experienced a spinal injury from high school kids speeding by and throwing a 64 ounce soda from their window while screaming "Faggot". It hit me in the back like a football. That was about 15 years ago and I still have pain from it. In that case I was simply walking with someone who was known to be gay in the neighborhood.
I have had my car vandalized. I have had people shoot my dog with pellets which on one of them, bled for several days.
I have had to sit at work while people make jokes like "That is so gay" then look at me stupidly and say "I didnt mean it like THAT.".
I have had strangers openly talk about "jumping" myself and my ex as we were walking from a pride parade.
I have been repeatedly pulled over because I had a Human Rights Campaign sticker on my bumper. In one month I was pulled over 6 times. These random stops magically halted when I had to get my car painted (from having been keyed) and the sticker was removed.

You do not see these things because you are not the target, and presumably do not directly associate with those who do in fact target. It sounds like an "Out of sight, out of mind" issue.

I am certain that many others on here have had similar happen. This is why I am sympathetic to their so called "irrational" responses to posts like these which regardless of how you think you phrased it-is worded as a polite way of saying something akin to "I wish they would just go back to their own country".

This issue is a 5 second annoyance to you and you chose to vocalize it to a people who have to live this crap their entire lives. Surely you can see why you get some of the responses you claim?

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by petrus4

 

This issue is a 5 second annoyance to you and you chose to vocalize it to a people who have to live this crap their entire lives. Surely you can see why you get some of the responses you claim?

Yes, but I've also had some fairly level headed responses here, as well. I guess it depends on what different people have had to deal with...as well as individual perspectives on it.

There's the usual drive-by trolling from EvilSadamClone and a few other members of what is apparently developing into an inverse fan club of mine on here; but that is standard, and occurs irrespective of what I write about. His response wasn't really specific to this thread; he does it everywhere.

When I was an atheist I was bullied in similar ways by Christians. In fact I once saw a group of Christians beat up a girl because she masturbated once.

Sometimes I'd be shot at with a pellet gun. Or during the winter these guys would throw snowballs that had things like nails and glass shards in them. Just because I wasn't a believer.

Which is why I just can't believe that Americans value individuality. They don't. They value conformity. They just can't agree on what to conform to.

I always think for myself, and always will.

reply to post by petrus4


You're the one who comes out swinging first. If you can't stand it don't dish it.

You were the one trolling first.

Edit:

It's been my experience that with trolls like you who like to malign entire groups never change their spots, so why should we bother with trying level headed responses to you?

I've had plenty of experience with trying level headed stuff trying to explain things to bigots who hate atheists and homosexuals. They never shut up and they never stop.

So tell me, with your bigotry why should ANYBODY TRY LEVEL HEADED RESPONSES TO YOU?

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by petrus4

 

You're the one who comes out swinging first. If you can't stand it don't dish.

You were the one trolling first.

You assume that I'm implying that I can't stand it. I've had much, much worse to deal with in my time than you, ESC.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by petrus4

 

This issue is a 5 second annoyance to you and you chose to vocalize it to a people who have to live this crap their entire lives. Surely you can see why you get some of the responses you claim?

Yes, but I've also had some fairly level headed responses here, as well. I guess it depends on what different people have had to deal with...as well as individual perspectives on it.

There's the usual drive-by trolling from EvilSadamClone and a few other members of what is apparently developing into an inverse fan club of mine on here; but that is standard, and occurs irrespective of what I write about. His response wasn't really specific to this thread; he does it everywhere.

edit on 13-6-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)

I was referring to responses from those cry-baby homo marxists
I saw a lot of references to "Victims" as well. I presume this was due to the blind spot of society. I personally chose to fight back at every possible option. I will not allow a random google search to lead to a thread here without perspective.

If you would like I will find sources and articles about the sort of things I have referenced. To show why Pride Parades-as garish and tacky as they are-are beneficial to the gay community at large. The factors of discrimination too.

Something about Privilege. It is not something people are aware of. It is reflected in the fact that they do not see anything as being wrong-after all they are part of the majority, the majority that is connected with them personally.

Back in the day white people did not register that every doll for girls was a white doll. That the very rare doll that was not was a Maid or some characature. This was not racist, it was simple ignorance. But-that didn't matter to the mother who had to take her daughter out shopping only to see a wall of white barbie dolls.

The arguments and statements you have made in this thread-to me at least-all sound like it is from Hetero privilege. The Parades and people who are so called "Out and loud" come off as egocentric, like they are saying "we got something better". That is not the case. They are in fact saying "I am not going to hide anymore".

Even in movies and TV shows, in mainstream anyway-whenever there is a gay character (with rare exception), is single, and there only to be the witty token friend who makes jokes about fashion to the other characters. Almost always superficial.

Similarly: Blacks are still most commonly portrayed as either druggies, gangsters or the new archetype: "The weathered cop who has struggled free from gangs and is wise". Don't forget about the "Magical Negro" Trope. This trope is almost identical to the "Witty homo friend". The homo friend always swoops in with relationships advice etc. etc.

All are symptoms of Privilege. Not outright bigotry.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Similarly: Blacks are still most commonly portrayed as either druggies, gangsters or the new archetype: "The weathered cop who has struggled free from gangs and is wise". Don't forget about the "Magical Negro" Trope. This trope is almost identical to the "Witty homo friend". The homo friend always swoops in with relationships advice etc. etc.

All are symptoms of Privilege. Not outright bigotry.

Granted, such archetypes are insulting, but viewed another way, they could also be seen as a transitional point towards acceptance, which is a positive thing. As patronising as it may be, surely it's better to be depicted as the "gay/black fairy godmother," or something similar, and yet actually survive, than for people to simply have the attitude that you should be lynched, and then proceed to do so.

In other words, it's a foot in the door, and something you can work with. They're a part of the developmental process of something that has been seen as "different," coming to be accepted. From there, it's a lot closer to equitable acceptance, than the point where you were still being lynched was. It's progress.

Hmmmm... from Star Trek we have Uhura, Worf, Geordi LaForge, and Benjamin Sisko.

I'd bet that if you did do some research you would find exceptions to the stereotypes though.

But that's another discussion for another thread.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
Hmmmm... from Star Trek we have Uhura, Worf, Geordi LaForge, and Benjamin Sisko.

I'd bet that if you did do some research you would find exceptions to the stereotypes though.

But that's another discussion for another thread.

Yes, and this was Whoopie Goldbergs reaction to Uhura:

When she was a little girl, Goldberg was a big Star Trek fan, because in the 1960s roles for African-Americans on television were scarce and often inconsequential — with Star Trek being an exception. On the U.S.S. Enterprise, the presence of Uhura on the Bridge crew connected with the young Goldberg, and her lifelong love of Star Trek had begun. "Well, when I was nine years old Star Trek came on," Goldberg says. "I looked at it and I went screaming through the house, 'Come here, mum, everybody, come quick, come quick, there's a black lady on television and she ain't no maid!' I knew right then and there I could be anything I wanted to be."

Taken from: www.startrek.com...

But, is citing 4 characters out of hundreds in those shows alone proof of what you are implying?
Look at the hundreds of portrayals on television.

Gene Roddenbery visualized a future where things didn't matter. There was also a gay character "Ensign Wolf"-one of the guys the Borg killed on First Contact. Though you would only know he was gay by reading commentary.

You also seem to miss the part where I was talking more about "back in the day". I also placed the caveat that there are exceptions. But-"Exception" implies a difference from the norm, now doesn't it?

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Similarly: Blacks are still most commonly portrayed as either druggies, gangsters or the new archetype: "The weathered cop who has struggled free from gangs and is wise". Don't forget about the "Magical Negro" Trope. This trope is almost identical to the "Witty homo friend". The homo friend always swoops in with relationships advice etc. etc.

All are symptoms of Privilege. Not outright bigotry.

Granted, such archetypes are insulting, but viewed another way, they could also be seen as a transitional point towards acceptance, which is a positive thing. As patronising as it may be, surely it's better to be depicted as the "gay/black fairy godmother," or something similar, and yet actually survive, than for people to simply have the attitude that you should be lynched, and then proceed to do so.

In other words, it's a foot in the door, and something you can work with. They're a part of the developmental process of something that has been seen as "different," coming to be accepted. From there, it's a lot closer to equitable acceptance, than the point where you were still being lynched was. It's progress.

Of course it is better to be the "Godmother" than the guy dieing from AIDS (one of the other very common archetypes).
But I was talking about that to cite privilege. Not meaning as a direct commentary on whether it was some how moral or just. Fact is-mainstream would not go to a movie where the main characters were Gay AND Normal. In this way I am shocked about how well Modern Family is doing. But even in that one-normal relationship items have raised rage from different groups.

reply to post by lordtyp0


I wasn't trying to imply that what you said wasn't true, just that there are some exceptions. Despite Hollywood's claims, there are still some problems with stereotyping. I suspect there always will be.

Example: the movie Predator, the officer who ran the group was a black man.

Remember at one time it was really the black man who always got killed first.

Edit:

Then of course there's the movie Blade, which can be argued to be for black racism against whites.

Originally posted by EvilSadamClone
reply to post by lordtyp0

 

I wasn't trying to imply that what you said wasn't true, just that there are some exceptions. Despite Hollywood's claims, there are still some problems with stereotyping. I suspect there always will be.

Example: the movie Predator, the officer who ran the group was a black man.

Lol, well to be fair: Stereotypes and archetypes are the bread and butter of all storytelling.
Allows the audience to immediately know what to expect from a scene and to connect in different ways with what is occurring.

Off topic though.

I was using those examples earlier to illustrate how casual things based from ignorance (not realizing it is going on) is very common across the board. In some ways Privilege is more insidious that outright bigotry.

When someone is a bigot you know early on. When they are operating on Privilege it can take awhile to wake them up and in the meantime-you have to take a few jabs.

reply to post by lordtyp0


I am really enjoying the discussion between you and EvilSadamClone.

I just had to say it.

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Fact is-mainstream would not go to a movie where the main characters were Gay AND Normal.

Not yet, perhaps. Give it time, my friend. I am aware that time may be something that not all of you have; but time, more than anything else, is what it needs.

Originally posted by petrus4

Originally posted by lordtyp0
Fact is-mainstream would not go to a movie where the main characters were Gay AND Normal.

Not yet, perhaps. Give it time, my friend. I am aware that time may be something that not all of you have; but time, more than anything else, is what it needs.

Let's shorten time with activism.

Sometimes "in your face" is the way to go.

If you truly are in love with someone, nothing else matters. There's always been things to get in the way of romance throughout history.
At the end of the day, what you get up to in the bedroom is your business, and nobody else''s. If you feel the need to tell the world about what you do with your genitals behind closed doors, then there is a problem that is far deeper than the love you have for another. Face it - your ego needs something that your sexuality might be able to provide in this current social climate.
Are you gay? Go for it.
Does the world need to know?
No.
Mixed marriages, arranged marriages, he or she's too poor, bad girl, bad boy, the list is endless. There's always a reason to want to prevent a relationship from moving forward.
Still, at the end of the day, you have the choice of choosing love over the daily pathetic grind of the world. Just don't go thinking that what you do in the bedroom has any form of social status or political rights! It just doesn't work that way...
If I introduce myself to someone, I don't say Hey, I'm XXXX and I have intimate sex with a female and I'm a male so you better make allowances for me.
The world doesn't need to know.... I can't help but feel if you can remember that, then we'll all be able to move forward from the Dr Phill level of social crap that invades our everyday lives....